RACHNA vs. UNION OF INDIA

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 1410 OF 2020 RACHNA & ORS. …..PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ….RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T Rastogi, J. 1. Application(s) for intervention are allowed.  2. The   batch   of   petitioners   were   hopeful   that   in   their   last attempt,   they   may   qualify   in   the   Civil   Services   (Preliminary) Examination, 2020 (in short “Examination 2020”) which was held Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by JAGDISH KUMAR Date: 2021.02.24 14:31:11 IST Reason: on 4th October 2020 but when they failed to achieve their goal, 1 approached   this   Court   by   filing   the   instant   writ   petition   under st Article   32   of   the   Constitution   seeking   mandamus   to   the   1 respondent   to   extend   one   additional   attempt   to   the petitioners/intervenors as they are being barred from attempting the examination in future on account of exhausting of available attempts   or   on   account   of   age   bar   subsequent   to   Examination 2020. 3. The prayer which has been made in the instant petition is as follows:­  “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof and declare that the action of the respondents of not issuing appropriate policy for grant of an extra attempt to candidates for whom civil services examination 2020 would be last attempt as being violative of Articles 14, 19, 29 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and by way of issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction of or in the nature of mandamus, and/or any other   writ,   order   or   direction,   inter­alia,   direct   the Respondent/s   to   provide   one   extra   attempt   to   the   last attempt candidates including the petitioners, in addition to number of permissible attempts: and/or (b) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” Brief Factual Matrix 4. The background facts delineated from the records and relevant for   the   purpose   are   that   the   Civil   Services   Examination   is 2 nd conducted every year by the 2   respondent (Union Public Service Commission­UPSC)   and   for   the   year   2020,   the   Ministry   of Personnel,   Public   Grievances   and   Pensions   (Department   of Personnel and Training) published Gazette Notification dated 12th February,   2020   notifying   the   rules   for   competitive   examination, 2020(hereinafter being referred to as “Rules 2020”) to be held by the nd 2  respondent for the purpose of recruitment to 24 services/posts to be held in three stages:­ (i) preliminary (ii) mains (iii) personality test. th 5. The scheme of Rules 2020 published on 12  February, 2020 is a complete code for the purposes of final selection to civil services. The parameters prescribed for eligibility with regard to  number of attempts and age have been provided under Rule 4 and Rule 6 of the   Rules   2020.   Rule   4   and   Rule   6   which   are   relevant   for  the purpose are mentioned hereunder:­ “   Every candidate appearing at the examination who is 4. otherwise eligible, shall be permitted six attempts at the examination. Provided   that   this   restriction   on   the   number   of attempts will not apply in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates who are otherwise eligible. Provided   further   that   the   number   of   attempts permissible   to   candidates   belonging   to   Other   Backward 3 Classes,   who   are   otherwise   eligible,   shall   be   nine.   The relaxation   will   be   available   to   the   candidates   who   are eligible to avail of reservation applicable to such candidates. Provided further that candidates belonging to persons with benchmark disability will get as many attempts as are available to candidates other than persons with benchmark disability of his or her community, subject to the condition that   a   candidate   of   person   with   benchmark   disability belonging to the General and EWS Category shall be eligible for nine attempts.  Necessary action to make corresponding changes   in   respective   Rules/regulations   pertaining   to various services is being taken separately. The relaxation will   be   available   to   the   candidate   of   persons   with benchmark disability who are eligible to avail of reservation applicable to such candidates. Note:­ (I)   An   attempt   at   a   Preliminary   Examination   shall   be deemed to be an attempt at the Civil Services Examination. (II) If a candidate actually appears in any one paper in the Preliminary Examination, he/she shall be deemed to have made an attempt at the Examination. (III)   Notwithstanding   the   disqualification/cancellation   of candidature, the fact of appearance of the candidate at the examination will count as an attempt.  (a) A candidate must have attained the age of 21 years 6. st and must not have attained the age of 32 years on the 1  of August, 2020 i.e., he must have been born not earlier than nd st 2   August,   1988   and   not   later   than   1   August,   1999. Necessary   action   to   make   corresponding   changes   in respective Rules/Regulations pertaining to various services is being taken separately. (b) The upper age­limit prescribed above will be relaxable: (i) up to a maximum of five years if a candidate belongs   to   a   Scheduled   Caste   or   a   Scheduled Tribe; (ii) up to a maximum of three years in the case of candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes who are eligible to avail of reservation applicable to such candidates; 4 (iii) up to a maximum of three years in the case of Defence Services Personnel, disabled in operations during hostilities with any foreign country or in a distributed area and released as a consequence thereof; (iv) up to a maximum of five years in the case of ex­servicemen   including   Commissioned   Officers and ECOs/SSCOs who have rendered at least five st years Military Service as on 1  August, 2020 and have been released; (a)   on   completion   of   assignment (including   those   whose   assignment   is due   to   be   completed   within   one   year st from 1  August, 2020 otherwise than by way   of   dismissal   or   discharge   on account of misconduct or inefficiency; or (b)   on   account   of   physical   disability attributable to Military Service; or  (c) on invalidment. (v) up to a maximum of five years in the case of ECOs/SSCOs   who   have   completed   an   initial period   of   assignment   of   five   years   of   Military st Service   as   on   1   August,   2020   and   whose assignment has been extended beyond five years and in whose case the Ministry of Defence issues a   certificate   that   they   can   apply   for   civil employment   and   that   they   will   be   released   on three months’ notice on selection from the date of receipt of offer of appointment. (vi) up to a maximum of 10 years in the case of Persons   with   Benchmark   Disabilities   viz.   (a) blindness   and   low   vision;   (b)   deaf   and   hard   of hearing; (c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy; (d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;   (e)   multiple   disabilities   from   amongst person   under   clauses   (a)   to   (d)   including   deaf­ blindness. 5 Note I :­ Candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes who are also covered under any other clauses of Rule 6(b) above, viz. those coming under the category of Ex­servicemen, Persons with Benchmark Disabilities [viz. (a) blindness and low vision; (b) deaf and hard of hearing; (c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism,   acid   attack   victims   and   muscular dystrophy;   (d)   autism,   intellectual   disability, specific learning disability and mental illness; (e) multiple disabilities from amongst person under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf­blindness.] will be eligible   for   grant   of   cumulative   age­relaxation under both the categories. Note II : The details of Functional Classification (FC)   and   Physical   Requirements   (PR)   of   each service are indicated in Appendix IV of these Rules which   are   identified   and   prescribed   by   the respective Cadre Controlling Authorities   (CCAs) as per the provisions of Section 33 and 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Only those category(ies) of disability(ies) mentioned in Appendix IV shall apply for the examination under Persons   with   Benchmark   Disability   (PwBD) category. Therefore, the candidates belonging to the Persons with Benchmark Disability categories are advised to read it carefully before applying for the examination. Note III:­ The term Ex­servicemen will apply to the persons who are defined as Ex­servicemen in the Ex­servicemen   (Re­employment   in   Civil   Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, as amended from time to time. Note IV:­ The age concession under Rule 6(b)(iv) and (v) will be admissible to Ex­servicemen i.e. a person who has served in any rank whether as combatant   or   non­combatant   in   the   Regular Army, Navy and Air Force of the Indian Union and who   either   has   been   retired   or   relieved   or discharged from such service whether at his own request   or  being   relieved  by   the  employer   after earning his or her pension. 6 Note   V:­   Notwithstanding   the   provision   of   age­ relaxation under Rule 6(b)(vi) above, Candidates of Persons   with   Benchmark   Disability   will   be considered to be eligible for appointment only if he/she (after  such physical examination as the Government or appointment authority, as the case may   be,   may   prescribe)   is   found   to   satisfy   the requirements of physical and medical standards for the concerned Services/Posts to be allocated to the   Candidates   of   Persons   with   Benchmark Disability by the Government. Save   as   provided   above,   the   age­limits prescribed can in no case be relaxed . ….” 6. It may be relevant to note that for the candidates who appear in the open category in the examination, they are permitted six attempts but for the candidates who are the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, there is no restriction on the number of   attempts   provided,   they   are   otherwise   eligible.     For   the candidates who are belonging to OBC/EWS category, they can avail nine attempts. A clarification has further been made that if the candidate   appears   even   in   one   paper   of   the   preliminary examination, it shall be deemed to be treated as an attempt.  At the same time under Rule 6, the age at the entry point is 21 years and exit at the age of 32 years.  But the upper age limit is relaxable to the categories of vertical/horizontal reservations and there is no 7 such enabling provision granting relaxation in the upper age limit to the   candidates   belonging   to   general   category   as   such   those candidates of general category who have attained the age of 32 years on 1st August, 2020 as in the instant case became ineligible to participate in the ensuing Civil Services Examination, 2021(in short “CSE 2021”).  th 7. Pursuant   to   the   notification   dated   12   February,   2020 st published in the Official Gazette by the 1   respondent, process of selection was initiated by the Commission inviting applications from the   eligible   candidates   who   wish   to   appear   in   the   Examination 2020.   According   to   the   notice   published   by   the   Commission, preliminary   examination   was   to   be   held   on   31st   May   2020. Appendix   II­B   annexed   thereto   deals   with   the   procedure   for withdrawal of application after submission of online application, it th could be withdrawn from 12   March, 2020 to 18th March, 2020. Thereafter the admit cards were issued to all the candidates who intended to participate in the selection process, but because of the unprecedented   Covid­19   pandemic,   which   was   notified   by   the National Disaster Management Authority vide its order dated 24th 8 th March 2020, the Commission by its Press Release dated 4   May, 2020 deferred the Examination 2020 and further informed that the revised schedule of examination will be notified at a later stage.  8. Taking note of the unlock 1.0 guidelines published on 5th June 2020, the Commission decided to conduct the preliminary examination on 4th October, 2020.  Several candidates submitted their objections. Taking note thereof, the Commission allowed the candidates to submit their revised choice of examination center by its letter dated 1st July, 2020 and further opened the window for th withdrawal of the application from 1st August, 2020 to 8  August, 2020. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that after a second opportunity was afforded to the candidates for withdrawal of the application, only such of the candidates were left who had made up their mind and were mentally prepared to appear in the ensuing preliminary examination which was scheduled to be held on 4th October, 2020.  9. As alleged that when no decision was taken by the respondent on their representations/objections for deferring of the examination, certain candidates filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.1012 of 2020 before 9 this Court on 5th September, 2020 seeking postponement of the Examination 2020 and the prayer for relaxation in upper age limit and an additional attempt.   This Court was not persuaded to issue a direction to the Commission to defer the schedule of examination to be held on 4th October, 2020 on the submissions made by the writ petitioners who approached this Court.   Moreover, on one of the issues, this Court expressed a sanguine hope that possibility of providing one more attempt to such candidates with corresponding extension of age limit, if possible, can be explored by the concerned authorities. The submission made to merge the two examinations, th namely, to be conducted on 4  October, 2020 with the examination scheduled for 2021, however, did not find favour by this Court.  th 10. The relevant part of the order dated 30   September, 2020 is extracted as under:­ “(iv) The fourth point raised before us is that some of the candidates may be giving last attempt and also likely to become age­barred for the next examination, and if such candidates are unable to appear in the examination due to Covid­19 pandemic situation, it would cause great prejudice to them.  In this regard, we have impressed upon Mr. S.V. Raju, learned   Additional   Solicitor   General   appearing   for   the Ministry   of   Home   Affairs   (MHA),   Ministry   of   Health   and Family Welfare (MoHFW) and Department of Personnel and 10 Training (DoPT) to explore the possibility of providing one more   attempt   to   such   candidates   with   corresponding extension   of   age   limit.   He   has   agreed   to   convey   the sentiments  of   the   Court   to  all  concerned  and  to  take   a formal decision thereon expeditiously.”  11. The fact is that all the writ petitioners/intervenors appeared in th the preliminary examination held on 4   October, 2020 which was conducted in 74 cities.  During the course of arguments, following information was brought to the notice of this Court:­ ­Number of candidates who enrolled for the Examination 2020 ­10,56,835.   th ­Number of candidates who appeared on 4  October, 2020­ 4,86,952. ­Number   of   last   attempt   candidates   who   appeared   for Examination 2020 and have not attained age bar for 2021­ 3863 ­Number   of   last   attempt   candidates   who   appeared   in Examination 2020 and would reach age bar for CSE 2021­ 2236 ­Candidates having last attempt in terms of age bar but did not appear­ 4237 ­Combined effect of last attempt appeared : 3863 + 2236 = 6099   which   comes   to   around   1.25%   of   candidates   who appeared for the examination. ­Combined   effect   of   candidates   who   appeared   and   non­ appeared and who require relaxation for 2021, i.e. total = 3863+2236+4237 = 10,336 which comes to 0.97% of total candidates who enrolled for Examination, 2020. 11 12. When the present petitioners/intervenors failed to qualify in th the   preliminary   examination   held   on   4   October,   2020   by   the Commission, they approached this Court by filing of the instant writ petition, and this Court took note of the fact that in the light of th the order passed in the earlier proceedings dated 30   September, 2020, the decision of the competent authority to fulfil the legitimate aspirations of the candidates was still pending with the authority. During the pendency of the writ petition in deference to this Court, st a decision was taken by the 1  respondent and placed for perusal th dated 5  February, 2021 in which it was agreed in principle to give one time restricted relaxation, limited to CSE 2021 to only those candidates   who   appeared   in   Examination   2020   as   their   last permissible   attempt   and   otherwise   are   not   age­barred   from appearing in CSE 2021, and no relaxation to the candidates will be given who have not exhausted their permissible number of attempts or to those candidates who are otherwise age­barred from appearing in CSE 2021.   The extract of the decision which was placed on th record dated 5  February, 2021 is reproduced hereunder:­ “As per the suggestion of this Hon’ble Court, the Union of India is agreeable for the following ex­gratia, one­time, 12 restricted   relaxation   to   be   granted   to   the   prospective candidates, subject to the same being part of a consent order, disposing off the petition. The conditions, agreeable to the Respondent, are as under: 1. Relaxation, only to the extent of providing one extra attempt for Civil Service Examination (CSE), specifically limited to CSE­2021, may be granted to only those candidates who appeared for CSE­ 2020  as their   last   permissible  attempt   and  are otherwise not age­barred from appearing in CSE­ 2021. 2. No relaxation shall be granted for CSE­2021 to those candidates who have not exhausted their permissible   number   of   attempts   or   to   those candidates   who   are   otherwise   age­barred   from appearing in CSE­2021 as per the prescribed age limits   of   different   categories,   or   to   any   other candidate for any other reason whatsoever. 2. 3. This relaxation for the candidates and to the extent as prescribed above, shall be a one­time relaxation only and shall apply only for appearing in   CSE­2021   and   shall   not   be   treated   as   a precedent. 4. The relaxation provided at Point 1, shall not create any vested right whatsoever or any other purported right on ground of parity or otherwise, in favour of any other set/class of candidates at any time in the future.” Submissions of the parties 13. The   main   thrust   of   submission   of   learned   counsel   for   the petitioners   is   that   the   sudden   and   strict   lockdown   due   to unprecedented   pandemic   in   March,   2020   had   made   a   large disruption in the life of the common man and the measures adopted 13 led   to   difficulties   and   impediments   in   the   preparation   of   the Examination 2020 for many aspirants and the Government failed to take   any   policy   decision   for   the   last   attemptees   before   holding Examination 2020 to enable them to take an appropriate/suitable st decision   and   noticing   precedence   from   the   earlier   policy   of   1 respondent to grant an extra attempt to last­attemptees in the event causing widespread hardships left with no choice except to appear in the examination even though they did not have an adequate opportunity and infrastructure and they were left out blinded with uncertainty. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are placed in the disadvantageous position with the onset of the pandemic and due to the unprecedented measures imposed in the wake thereof.  That apart, candidates working in essential services did not have the benefit of seeking leave or claiming exemption from duty/overtime duty looking to the nature of their services and in the light of invocation of The Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1968 and The Disaster Management Act, 2005.  There is no benefit 14 accruing to persons in essential services and public employment, consequent to the unlock guidelines. 15. Learned counsel further submits that denial of an additional attempt   to   the   petitioners   will   make   them   to   suffer   serious discrimination amongst who have not faced such hurdles as being faced   by   the   petitioners   in   their   preparation   during   the unprecedented pandemic. While others had a choice of leaving the Examination   2020,   while   taking   care   of   their   health,   the   last attemptees particularly in terms of age, were left with no choice and had to sit for the exam despite the lack of opportunity to prepare which is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 16. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   the   petitioners   were deprived   of   their   basic   facilities   for   preparation   in   view   of   the innumerable,   inevitable   circumstances   suffered   by   them   due   to Covid­19 pandemic, which prevailed in the entire country during the crucial period  of  their  preparation and  even on  the  date of examination,   but   the   impact   may   not   be   uniform   on   all   the participants   and   at   least   to   those   who   are   essential   service 15 providers and such candidates deserve one more attempt when they virtually lost for unavoidable circumstances their last attempt in 2020 and there are past precedents to grant of extra attempt in addition to age relaxation for such years when UPSC Civil Services Examinations’ aspirants faced hardships due to various reasons. 17. Learned   counsel   for   the   intervenors   in   addition   further st submitted that the discretion exercised by the 1  respondent dated th 5    February, 2021 to grant one time relaxation limited to only those candidates who appeared for Examination 2020 as their last permissible attempt and otherwise not age­bared from appearing in CSE   2021   with   no   relaxation   to   the   candidates   who   have   not exhausted   their   permissible   number   of   attempts   or   to   those candidates who are otherwise age­barred from appearing in CSE 2021 is not a rational decision and no such classification could be made amongst the group of candidates who had participated in Examination 2020 as a last attempt and are debarred to appear in CSE   2021   because   of   the   attempt   being   exhausted   or   having st crossed   the   upper   age   limit   and   it   was   expected   from   the   1 respondent to take a holistic view of the situation and grant one 16 time   relaxation   to   all   the   candidates   who   had   participated   in Examination 2020 regardless of the fact whether one has availed all the attempts or crossed the age barrier disqualifying to appear in CSE 2021.  18. Learned   counsel   for   intervenors   further   submits   that   the candidates who appeared in Examination 2020 by and large are affected because of unprecedented pandemic and they were unable to prepare themselves to appear in the examination due to various impediments   which   came   in   front   of   them   of   which   adequate reasons   have   been   furnished   to   this   Court.     In   the   given circumstances, at least taking a lenient and a holistic view of the matter, this Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution granting one time relaxation to the candidates who appeared   in   Examination   2020   with   one   additional   attempt regardless of the fact whether one has exhausted the number of attempts or crossed the upper age limit as prescribed under the Rules   2020   and   it   does   not   affect   either   the   integrity   of   the examination or any restriction on the prospective participants of CSE 2021 and to those who have already availed the attempts. All 17 hopes of the candidates remain in the last attempt but that had gone in vain because of the unprecedented situation which came in front of them and that was the only reason for which they have not been able   to  put  their   full  potential   to  qualify   the   Examination 2020. 19. Per   contra,   counter   affidavits   have   been   filed   by   the respondents   in   their   defence   and   it   has   been   stated   that   the syllabus   for   the   preliminary   examination   has   not   been   changed since 2015 and examination of this nature is not possible for a candidate   to   prepare   at   the   last   moment   and   it  needs   a   lot   of planning, spanning of a number of going through this preparation. Entry   age   of   candidates   is   21   years   and   exit   age   for   general candidates is 32 years.  Relaxations/upper age limits are available to candidates who appear in certain categories of vertical/horizontal reservations. Hence, for general candidates there is a time of 11 years if they would be able to start preparing at the age of 21.  After the   process   was   initiated   pursuant   to   Rules   2020,   as   per   the scheme, the examination was scheduled for 31st May, 2020. There was   a   clear   time   of   three   and   a   half   months   and   by   the   time 18 candidate appeared in their last attempt, they would have a lot of experience so it could easily be inferred that they have consumed sufficient time to prepare for the preliminary examination as no change in the syllabus has been given effect to after the year 2015 but   taking   note   of   the   unprecedented   situation   of   Covid­19 pandemic,  the   policy   decision  was   taken  by   the   Commission  to th defer the examination and on 5   June 2020, it was declared that th the examination is to be scheduled on 4  October, 2020.  Therefore, instead of three months which is the requirement under the scheme of rules, candidates got almost five additional months (i.e. eight months) to prepare for the Examination 2020 and to compensate the hardships caused by Covid­19 pandemic, different modalities were adopted by the respondent. So far as the demand made by the petitioners for extra attempt or extra year is concerned, it has been specifically stated that giving of an extra attempt or the year would result   in   hardships   being   caused   to   the   candidates   who   are appearing for the CSE 2021 and that apart an additional attempt has been demanded by the petitioners who are the last attempters or who have crossed the age bar.  19 20. According   to   the   learned   counsel,   that   would   result   in discrimination for the reason that all attemptees irrespective of the st nd nature of attempt (i.e., 1 , 2  etc.) must have suffered during this Covid­19   pandemic   and   hence   the   consideration   of   giving   an additional attempt to only last attemptees would be discriminatory. At   the   same   time,   such   of   the   successful   candidates   can   also complain but for Covid­19, their rankings in the list of successful candidates would have been much higher, therefore, they should also be given an additional chance.  Similar reasoning would apply as far as the upper age is concerned and so far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, these are without  prejudice   to the  main  contention  that  they   are  not entitled for relaxation as prayed for. 21. It has been further stated that the first national lockdown came into force on 25th March, 2020, i.e., after one and a half th month of  the   notice   of   examination published   on  12   February st 2020.  From 1  June, 2020, gradual unlocking of the lockdown had started on monthly basis and the preliminary examination was held th on 4  October, 2020 when the unlock guidelines 5.0 were in force. 20 To meet out the bone of contention of the petitioners that there are precedents for granting relaxation on earlier occasions is concerned, it has been stated that these are the policy decisions taken by the executive in a particular facts and circumstances and the present decision has to be tested independently in the given circumstances, which has no relativity or comparison.  22. It has also been stated that the candidates who had appeared in the examination had accepted the rules of the Examination 2020 and now having appeared and failed, they cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate in the same breath after they had failed in the Examination 2020.  The submission may not hold good for the reason that their prayer is to grant additional attempt to appear in CSE 2021 and the petitioners have not questioned the procedure of selection held of Preliminary Examination 2020, deserves rejection. nd 23. The 2  respondent (UPSC) has also filed its counter affidavit and it has been stated that due to prevailing conditions  in the country in the year 2020 on account of Covid­19 pandemic, several decisions   were   taken   by   the   Commission   to   reschedule   the examinations as a matter of fact, no examination was held during 21 the period of lockdown. The resumption of examinations started th with the NDA & NA Examination (I) & (II) on 6  September, 2020 and apart from Examination 2020, following are the examinations th and recruitment tests held by the Commission during the period 6 th September, 2020 to 20  December, 2020:­

22   24. Learned counsel for the Commission submits that although st the decision has to be taken by the 1  respondent in meeting out nd the   prayer   made   by   the   writ   petitioners   but   so   far   as   the   2 respondent   (UPSC)   is   concerned,   all   effective   measures   were adopted in holding the examinations/recruitment tests of various Central Services during the said period and indulgence which has been prayed for by the petitioners appeared in Examination 2020, in   the   given   circumstances,   of   which   the   details   have   been furnished need no further indulgence by this Court. Analysis 25. We   have   heard   Mr.   Shyam   Divan,   learned   senior   counsel appearing   for   the   petitioners;   Mr.   S.V.   Raju,   learned   Additional Solicitor   General   and   Mr.   Naresh   Kaushik,   learned   counsel appearing for the respondents; Mr. P.V. Narasimha and Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenors and with their assistance perused the material available on record. “The question that emerges for our consideration is   that   whether   the   petitioners/intervenors   and 23 other   similarly   placed   candidates   are   entitled   to another/additional chance for CSE 2021 on account of the unprecedented Covid­19 pandemic which as alleged   has   deprived   them   from   effectively participating in the Examination 2020”.  26. There is no doubt that for India or for rest of the world, Covid­ 19 has been a disaster of unprecedented proportions. The crisis of Covid­19   pandemic   has   provided   the   sternest   test   for   disaster management response in most countries, including India.  Due to unprecedented spread of the virus, the world had gone into a virtual lockdown as several countries initiated strict screening of potential cases introduced in their territory. Disasters are testing times for the   institutions   and   individuals,   processes   and   procedures,   and policies   and   their   implementation   mechanisms.     We   can   take judicial notice that when Covid­19 struck India, the country already had in place legal and administrative instruments to empower and enable   the   State   to   contain   and   manage   the   several  crisis   that would arise from the pandemic.  Two of the most legal instruments are the Distaster Management Act, 2005 and the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 amended in the year 2020.   24 27. The   World   Health   Organization(WHO)   has   declared   it   as   a global pandemic. Not only that but because of its rampant spread, countries   were   forced   to   stop   international   traveling   as   well   as locked up themselves.  Also, the lockdown has been recognised at the given point of time as the only method to control the spread of the pandemic and almost every country has adopted this method. 28. On 25th March, 2020, the Disaster Management Act 2005(DM Act) was invoked in India for the first time since it was passed almost a month and a half ago, to tackle the Covid­19 pandemic that   was   then   in   its   initial   stages   of   spreading.   The   National Disaster Management Authority(NDMA) which was created by the Ministry   of   Home   Affairs(MHA)   in   pursuance   of   the   Disaster Management   Act  2005,   issued   a   notification   dated   24th   March, 2020 under Section 6(2)(i) of the DM Act.   The order directed the ministries   and   departments   of   Government   of   India   and   State Governments along with State Disaster Management Authorities to take measures for “ensuring social distancing so as to prevent the spread of Covid­19 in the country”.  25 29. In the early phases of this spread of Covid­19 pandemic, the response   attempted   to   control   the   ingress   of   the   virus   in   our country through border control, screening of persons entering the country,   follow­up   surveillance   and   contract   tracing.   This   was followed by series of countrywide lockdown measures: Lockdown 1 th th th (25  March, 2020 to 15  April, 2020), Lockdown 2(16  April, 2020 rd th th to 3  May, 2020) and Lockdown 3 and 4 (4  May, 2020 to 17  May, st 2020 and then through May 31 ). Instituted and publicized by the Central   Government   under   the   Disaster   Management   Act   2005, these   lockdowns   varied   in   scope   and   nature,   depending   on   the situation on the ground. 30. Despite that Covid­19 pandemic has affected the livelihood of the common man at all levels, be it a level of education system, from   pre­school   to   tertiary   education.     Different   countries introduced various policies in meeting out the widespread socio­ economic   implications   but   the   Covid­19   pandemic   has   left   its footprints for us to learn from the unprecedented situation, which everyone has come across and suddenly changed the lifestyle of every   individual   in   the   society,   his   way   of   working,   from   social 26 security   to   individual   human   rights,   from   macro   economy   to household income and has made us more stronger to face, if any difficult situation arises in future and this is what by experience we learn. There is an old saying “there is good in every evil”. Still life has to move on in all situations, and this is what this country has faced, but resiliently fought back this unprecedented situation and the economy and life of the common man is on the path towards normalcy in a short period of time than expected. 31. While   reverting   to   the   facts   of   the   instant   case   of   the petitioners, what is prayed by them in the first blush appears to be attractive  but it  lacks  legal strength  and  foundation  for various reasons. 32. The scheme of Rules 2020 of which a detailed reference has been made and Rules 4 & 6 in particular, clearly stipulate that the entry age to participate in this competition is 21 years and the exit age for general candidates is 32 years and at least each candidate gets   minimum   11   years   to   participate   in   the   competitive examination, i.e., CSE, in the instant case. For those who claim reservation   vertical/   horizontal,   they   have   numerous/unlimited 27 chances and are also entitled for age relaxations. Thus, the scheme takes note in providing adequate opportunities to the candidates to participate in this competitive examination at all levels.     It may further be noticed that under Rule 6 of Rules 2020, there is a clear mandate that age limit prescribed in no case can be relaxed subject to   the   relaxations   which   have   been   enumerated   for   various categories.   So far as the candidates who appear in the general category and have crossed the age of 32 years, no discretion is left with   the   authority   to   grant   any   relaxation   in   upper   age   limit prescribed for the candidates appeared in the instant Examination 2020.  33. The syllabus of the preliminary examination has not changed st since   2015   and   after   the   Rules   2020   were   notified   by   the   1 respondent for Civil Services Exam 2020, the notice, in the first th instance, was published on 12  February 2020 and the scheduled st date of the examination was fixed on 31  May, 2020 but because of the unprecedented situation of Covid­19 pandemic, the Commission took a policy decision to defer the examination and in the changed situation, after there was a relaxation in the lockdown,  ultimately 28 th th on 5   June, 2020 took a decision to hold the examination on 4 October   2020   and,   therefore,   instead   of   three   months,   the candidates got additional five months (i.e. eight months) to which one   ordinarily   can   prepare   for   appearing   in   the   examination   in terms of the scheme of Rules 2020.  34. Under the scheme of Rules 2020, mere filling up of the form is not sufficient to avail an attempt.  If someone appeared in either of the paper of the preliminary examination, that was considered to be an attempt availed by the candidate and, in the given situation, after the application form was filled, the candidates who wanted to withdraw their application form at the later stage because of the Covid­19 pandemic, the commission took a policy decision to open the window for the second time, which in the ordinary course is not available   under   the   scheme   of   rules,   for   the   candidates   who st th intended to withdraw their application from 1  August, 2020 to 8 th August,   2020.     Since   the   examination   was   scheduled   for   4 October, 2020 only those candidates were left who were mentally prepared to appear and willing to avail an opportunity of appearing in the Examination 2020 and after appearing in the examination, 29 when they could not qualify, it has given a way to the present litigation on the specious ground of Covid­19 pandemic that they were unable  to  effectively  participate  in the  process  of selection which has been initiated by the Commission in holding preliminary th examination on 4  October, 2020. 35. This court cannot lose sight of the fact that apart from the present Examination 2020, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that remedial measures were adopted for the candidates who had   participated   in   the   various   examinations/recruitment   tests held for Central services by the Commission at the given point of time during the Covid 19 pandemic and apart from that, the State Commissions/recruiting   agencies   must   have   conducted   their examinations/recruitment   tests   for   various   services   and   merely because the present petitioners made a complaint to this Court, cannot be taken into isolation for the purpose of seeking additional chance/attempt in the backdrop of Covid­19 pandemic, which has been faced by not only the candidates appeared in Examination 2020   but   by   the   candidates   appeared   in   the   various examinations/recruitment tests held by the State Commissions or 30 by other recruiting agencies and by and large, every member of the society in one way or the other but that does not in any manner give   legitimate   right   to   the   petitioners   to   claim   additional benefit/attempt   which   is   otherwise   not   permissible   under   the scheme of Rules 2020. 36. So   far   as   the   instant   case   is   concerned,   there   are   limited attempts for the candidates who appeared in the general category and the scheme of Rules 2020 does not provide any discretion to st the 1   respondent to grant relaxation either in attempt or in age st and any exercise of discretion which does not vest with the 1 respondent, if exercised, may go in contravention to the scheme of Rules 2020.  th 37. Taking note of the order of this Court dated 30   September, 2020 passed in Writ Petition(Civil) No. 1012 of 2020 in the earlier proceedings,   this   Court   has   shown   some   sympathy   for   the candidates who were having their last attempt and were also likely to become age barred for next examination, if any indulgence could be shown to them.  In compliance of the order of this Court, the 1st respondent has made endeavour to find out a way which is possible 31 to give solace to such candidates and placed it before this Court that too with reservation that there is a possibility in providing one extra attempt for the candidates who had availed the last and final attempt   in   Examination   2020   provided   they   are   within   their respective age brackets as provided under Rule 6 of the Rules 2020. After   the   proposal   was   placed   on   record,   even   the petitioners/intervenors inter se made their submission to the Court st that the proposal which has been placed by the 1  respondent for consideration of this Court according to them is discriminatory and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.   38. We do find substance in what being urged by learned counsel st for the petitioners inter se in questioning the decision placed by 1 respondent for our consideration.  If an additional attempt remains restricted   to   the   last   attemptees   for   the   reason   that   they   had suffered during Covid 19 pandemic, all attemptees irrespective of st nd the nature of attempt (i.e. 1 , 2  etc.) who appeared in Examination 2020 must have faced the same consequences as being faced by the writ petitioners and each one of them have suffered in one way or the other during the Covid­19 pandemic.   At the same time, this 32 reasoning would equally apply to those who have crossed the upper st age   barrier.     More   so,   when   no   discretion   is   left   with   the   1 respondent to grant relaxation in the age bracket to the candidates other than provided under Rule 6 of the scheme of Rules 2020 which indeed the present petitioners are not entitled to claim as a matter of right and that apart, those who have withdrawn their forms either because of lack of preparation or because of some personal reasons but have crossed the upper age limit to appear in CSE 2021, they would also be equally entitled to claim and no distinction could be made whether the candidate has appeared in the Examination 2020 and availed the last attempt or attempts is still available at his disposal or has crossed the upper age limit.   39. We do find substance that any concession either in attempt or age is not available under the scheme of Rules 2020, at the same st time, proposal which has been placed by the 1  respondent before us   apart   from   complaint   made   inter   se   by   the petitioners/intervenors   themselves   of   being   discriminatory   in character, we are also of the view that it is advisable to avoid this situation   and   any   relaxation   which   is   not   permissible   either   in 33 attempt or age under the scheme of Rules 2020 apart from being in contravention   to   the   rules,   it   may   be   discriminatory   and   it   is advisable  not to exercise  discretion  in implementing  what  being st proposed by the 1   respondent in compliance of the order of this th Court dated 30  September, 2020. 40. The thrust of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners was that  discretion   has   been  exercised   by   the   respondent  as a matter of policy in the earlier selections and the present petitioners have a legitimate expectation that the Government must exercise its discretion   to   overcome   the   unprecedented   situation   which   the petitioners have faced while appearing in the Examination 2020 and their right of fair consideration and effective participation in the selection process has been denied to them which is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 41. The   submission,   in  our   view,   is   without   substance  for  the reason   that   the   policy   decisions   which   had   been   taken   by   the executive on earlier occasions of which a reference has been made always depend on the facts and circumstances at the given point of time and has to be tested independently in the circumstances in 34 which it has been exercised by the competent authority or the 1st respondent as in the instant case. 42. Their further grievance that there is always a change in the upper   age   limit   and   number   of   attempts   in   different   spell   and st further emphasis was that in the year 2015, the 1   respondent allowed one more attempt in the Civil Service Examination 2015 for the   candidates   who   appeared   in   CSE   2011.     Although   the justification has been tendered by the respondents in their response that   as   there   was   a   substantial   change   in   the   pattern   of   Civil Service   (Preliminary)   Examination   2011,   in   the   given st circumstances,   the   1   respondent   in   its   wisdom   considered   it appropriate to grant one more attempt in Civil Service Examination, 2015   to   such   candidates   who   appeared   in   Civil   Service Examination, 2011 either due to reaching upper age limit or due to exhausting of number of attempts and that was the given situation st which prevailed upon the 1  respondent in taking a policy decision in granting permission but that cannot be made to be the basis or a foundation for the petitioners to site as a precedent in claiming to seek   one   additional   attempt   as   a   matter   of   right   which   is   not 35 permissible under the scheme of Rules 2020 or with the aid of Article 14 of the Constitution to take a call in meeting out the difficulties   which   have   been   faced   as   alleged   in   the   given circumstance.  43. It is the settled principle of law that policy decisions are open for judicial review by this Court for a very limited purpose and this Court can interfere into the realm of public policy so framed if it is either  absolutely   capricious,   totally   arbitrary   or   not   informed  of reasons and has been considered by this Court in  Union of India and Others Vs. M. Selvakumar and Another   2017(3) SCC 504. The relevant portion is as under:­ “ . There is one more reason due to which we are unable 47 to subscribe to the view taken by the Madras High Court and   Delhi   High   Court.   The   horizontal   reservation   and relaxation for Physically Handicapped Category candidates for Civil Services Examination, is a matter of Governmental policy and the Government after considering the relevant materials has extended relaxation and concessions to the Physically   Handicapped   candidates   belonging   to   the Reserved Category as well as General Category. It is not in the domain of the courts to embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether better policy could be evolved. The Court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious and non­informed by reasons, or totally arbitrary, offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution.” (Emphasis supplied) 36 44. It  was   the   case   where   the   number   of   attempts   granted   to physically handicapped persons were increased from 4 to 7 in the UPSC­CSE examination and the candidates belonging to the OBC had moved this Court requesting for an increase of the number of attempts from 7 to 10 that is an additional 3 attempts as it was done in the case of the physically handicapped category but that was repelled by this Court for the reasons indicated above. 45. Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue mandamus to frame policy in a particular manner are absolutely different.  It is within the realm of the executive to take a policy decision based on the   prevailing   circumstances   for   better   administration   and   in meeting out the exigencies but at the same time, it is not within the domain of the Courts to legislate.  The Courts do interpret the laws and in such an interpretation, certain creative process is involved. The   Courts   have   the   jurisdiction   to   declare   the   law   as unconstitutional.   That too, where it is called for.   The Court is called upon to consider the validity of a policy decision only when a challenge is made that such policy decision infringes fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution or any other statutory right. 37 Merely because as a matter of policy, if the 1st respondent has granted   relaxation   in   the   past   for   the   reason   that   there   was   a change   in   the   examination   pattern/syllabus   and   in   the   given situation, had considered to be an impediment for the participant in the Civil Service Examination, no assistance can be claimed by the st petitioners in seeking mandamus to the 1  respondent to come out with a policy granting relaxation to the participants who had availed a final and last attempt or have crossed the upper age by appearing in the Examination 2020 as a matter of right. 46. It   has   been   brought   to   our   notice   that   not   only   the petitioners/intervenors   before   this   Court,   but   there   are   large number of candidates who appeared in the various examinations in the year 2020 during Covid 19 pandemic and everyone must have faced some constraints/impediments/inconvenience in one way or the   other   and   this   Court   can   take   a   judicial   notice   that   these petitioners have appeared in the same pattern of examination in the previous years since the year 2015 and what is being claimed and prayed for under the guise of Covid 19 pandemic is nothing but a lame excuse in taking additional attempt to participate in the Civil 38 Service  Examination  2021   to be  held   in  future   and  we   find no substance in either of the submissions which has been made before us. 47. The data furnished to this Court by the Commission clearly indicate that various selections have been held by the Commission for Central Services in the year 2020 during Covid 19 pandemic and selections must have been held by State Commissions and other recruiting agencies, if this Court shows indulgence to few who had participated in the Examination 2020, it will set down a precedent and also have cascading effect on examinations in other streams, for which we are dissuaded to exercise plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. 48. We,   however,   make   it   clear   that   this   decision   would   not st restrict   the   1   respondent   or   the   executive   in   exercising   its discretion   in   meeting   out   the   nature   of   difficulties   as   being projected to this Court, if come across in future in dealing with the situation, if required. 49. Consequently, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 39 50. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. …………………………………….J. (A.M. KHANWILKAR) ……………………………………J. (INDU MALHOTRA) …………………………………….J. (AJAY RASTOGI) NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 24, 2021    40